Support NeoGAF

[SamVimes]

Used to be for. But with the expense realities and the possibility of getting it wrong, I'm against . And if any pro person was innocently convicted, I'm sure they'd be suddenly against as well. At least for normal crime

I find most of the morale questions like this are easily answered once you put yourself in the shoes.

Although to backpedal a bit, dudes like hitler and bin laden who are guilty of crimes without a shadow of a doubt, and whose death expense should be no more than the cost of the bullet, kill them on sight.

The criminal system of every developed country is based on the fact that if you didn't commit the crime beyond the shadow of a doubt you shouldn't be condemned to begin with.

Can you imagine if they told you "we're only 90% sure you commited murder so you get 25 to life"?.

 

[Sorian]

Black people are given the death penalty way out of proportion to the population. Innocent black people are given the death penalty way out of proportion to the population.

The "race card" is entirely appropriate here.

Black people are found guilty of crimes way out of proportion to the population, obviously this would translate to them getting the death penalty out of proportion too. That's a no brainer. I agree that there is something, fundamentally, wrong with our use of the death penalty but this seems more like a debate of whether the death penalty itself is bad. Like if you had a person here and you 100% knew that they were guilty and what every single one of their crimes were then could those crimes ever be something worth the death penalty.

And yeah, if even one innocent person is executed than that is way out of proportion. The death penalty should never be used unless there is absolutely no doubt of the person's crimes.

 

[mullet2000]

Hmmm. Depends.

I don't buy the "if we kill them we're just as bad as them!" argument, I never have (even as a child as far as I can remember) and in all likelihood I probably never will. Killing a man who killed someone in cold blood is not the same as killing that person to remove them from society.

That said it's difficult because of the possibility of false convictions. That said when people say "life imprisonment is a worse fate than death anyway" wouldn't it follow suit that false life imprisonment is worse than an unearned death penalty? Not sure where I stand on that, just food for thought.

Anyway, I think in a perfect world I would be for the death penalty. Well...ok in a perfect world we would not need it. But in a perfect conviction system I mean. I don't think it's cold blooded murder whatsoever like some people do, not even remotely. Someone who violently rapes a child for example, deserves no compassion. We are not as bad as him for killing him, we are eliminating a member of society who's lost their right to live in it. Too bad for him or her. However I think it's extraordinarily difficult to decide who should and should not be killed. Setting presidents is very risky in this case.

It's tough! I'm not sure how much the risk of false charges should play into the moral discussion of it however because that is an equal factor for any conviction, and I'm not sure a life is any less ruined by serving life imprisonment than it is by being killed for a crime that wasn't committed.

 

[Loxley]

I could, in theory, be fine with it if the system worked 100% of the time. If it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you deliberately, maliciously robbed a person (much less multiple people) of their right to live and it was not the direct result of some genuine mental illness that can be treated - then I no longer care about your right to keep your life.

Spoiler

Yes, I'm aware there's a slight double-standard there

.

But alas, too many innocent people have been fallen victim to the death penalty, so I can't say I'm all for it. I guess at this point it speaks to a larger issue of how our legal system works (or doesn't work).

 

[t26]

This thread is making me reconsider my stance

What is your current stance?

 

[Oersted]

Not state obedient enough.



Btw, I haven't seen a good argument for it so far.

 

[Kai Dracon]

A simpler analogy for people who think even one innocent person executed is okay so long as villains get their due:

Hi I'm a cop. There's bad man standing behind you. Sorry but I've got to shoot you through the head to make sure I hit the bad man. This situation only happens once in a while, so it's really okay, see? Bye now.

Executing someone already threat-neutralized and locked up is even worse, because there's no immediate heat-of-the-moment pressure to take out the bad guy.

 

[foxtrot3d]

I think you are giving the death penalty too much benefit of the doubt. The US has removed hundreds of people from death row, mainly because the ability to study DNA evidence has improved. The technological shortcomings of a single field nearly sent well over a hundred innocent people to their death. This is just old cases that still had useful DNA evidence, haven't carried out the execution yet, managed to be successfully reopened and ended up getting overturned. Some cases are affected by prosecutorial misconduct, others by sloppy employees or lazy investigators, and often you have juries that are stuck with only one suspect and feel like they have no other explanation. There are many ways that an innocent person could be found guilty, and I think it happens more often than people should be comfortable with.

You've brushed off significant costs without addressing whether the benefits outweigh them. It hasn't been shown to be effective in deterring crimes or improving the lives of victim's families, since the trails tend to drag on much longer if the fate of someone's life is being decided. The legal costs are much higher when the death penalty is pursued, which is warranted since legal fees should not be a determining factor in the outcome. What benefit does it have, aside from satisfying bloodlust? I'm not "soft on crime" and I think punishment and rehabilitation should both be a significant part of the sentence, but why is there a systematic need to make them pay a price that you could never refund? Can you actually show significant benefits to that, outweighing the costs, that can't be achieved with life behind bars?

Again, I don't see the debate in a utilitarian perspective or some cost/benefit analysis, there doesn't and really shouldn't need to be any benefit when it comes to things like executing a person. It is simply punishment, it shouldn't be emotional or for revenge, it is simply recognizing the awful deeds of this person and consequently giving them the punishment that is warranted for such crimes.

 

[Pau]

Black people are found guilty of crimes way out of proportion to the population, obviously this would translate to them getting the death penalty out of proportion too. That's a no brainer. I agree that there is something, fundamentally, wrong with our use of the death penalty but this seems more like a debate of whether the death penalty itself is bad. Like if you had a person here and you 100% knew that they were guilty and what every single one of their crimes were then could those crimes ever be something worth the death penalty.

Except we don't live in an ideal world and should consider the reality of how the death penalty is administered when we make a decision of whether or not we're against it.

 

[SamVimes]

Anyway, I think in a perfect world I would be for the death penalty. Well...ok in a perfect world we would not need it. But in a perfect conviction system I mean. I don't think it's cold blooded murder whatsoever like some people do, not even remotely. Someone who violently rapes a child for example, deserves no compassion. We are not as bad as him for killing him, we are eliminating a member of society who's lost their right to live in it. Too bad for him or her. However I think it's extraordinarily difficult to decide who should and should not be killed. Setting presidents is very risky in this case.

What stops him from killing the child immediately after the fact since he has nothing to lose?

Again, I don't see the debate in a utilitarian perspective or some cost/benefit analysis, there doesn't and really shouldn't need to be any benefit when it comes to things like executing a person. It is simply punishment, it shouldn't be emotional or for revenge, it is simply recognizing the awful deeds of this person and consequently giving them the punishment that is warranted for such crimes.

Yes and recognizing the awful deed of being alive of the innocent which is totally fine every once in a while.

 

[scogoth]

I didn't realize this was a hot topic debate these days considering the only western country to still use it is the US.

 

[Kazerei]

But it's not about revenge, nor is it really about deterrence, I've already explained my point it is simply about punishment. It's about recognizing the abhorrent acts this person has committed and deeming them no longer fit to remain in society in any capacity. Revenge is about the victims, about emotion and an eye for an eye. Justice isn't supposed to be about revenge it is about dealing out an equitable punishment for the crime a person has committed.

Life sentence without parole also removes them from society

 

[justjustin]

I just don't see the point of the death penalty, and I don't think the state should have that kind of authority.. It won't deter anyone from committing a serious crime, and death is not a punishment-- serving a sentence is.

The justice system in the US is so arguably unjust that it is not worth the risk of having lawfully sanctioned executions. 10% of the US population has been in jail, most people never go to trial before going to prison, and a majority of people serving a sentence is because of some minor drug charge or other small offense. Forget about having rights and standing before a jury, it doesn't happen nearly as much as many of us believe it does.

But that's a little beside the point, because even if we had some perfectly just system, the death penalty would still seem wrong to me.

 

[Oersted]

Again, I don't see the debate in a utilitarian perspective or some cost/benefit analysis, there doesn't and really shouldn't need to be any benefit when it comes to things like executing a person. It is simply punishment, it shouldn't be emotional or for revenge, it is simply recognizing the awful deeds of this person and consequently giving them the punishment that is warranted for such crimes.

What is the argument for that punishment?

I didn't realize this was a hot topic debate these days considering the only western country to still use it is the US.

Got me also confused. Besides North Korea, USA and Saudi Arabia its pretty much nowhere accepted at this point.
I'm not so sure about Korea and Arabia.

 

[danwarb]

Again, I don't see the debate in a utilitarian perspective or some cost/benefit analysis, there doesn't and really shouldn't need to be any benefit when it comes to things like executing a person. It is simply punishment, it shouldn't be emotional or for revenge, it is simply recognizing the awful deeds of this person and consequently giving them the punishment that is warranted for such crimes.

What is the point of punishment if it isn't preventative or for revenge?

Revenge is a thing because the evolutionary advantage for revenge is deterrent.

 

[Cyan]

Again, I don't see the debate in a utilitarian perspective or some cost/benefit analysis, there doesn't and really shouldn't need to be any benefit when it comes to things like executing a person. It is simply punishment, it shouldn't be emotional or for revenge, it is simply recognizing the awful deeds of this person and consequently giving them the punishment that is warranted for such crimes.

You keep using the word "punishment" as though it means something distinct from "revenge." What do you think it means?

 

[boingball]

Against. Civilized countries should not kill people. Stop.

A state should protect its citizens, all its citizens. That includes criminals.

Killing someone serves only one purpose: Revenge. A civilized country should be beyond that emotion. I understand that victims feel different, but we do have a justice system instead of mob justice or vigilantism because of that reason.

It doesn't even make sense financially since the complex process to kill someone legally costs a lot of money, more than just giving them a life sentence.

As far as #2 goes while it may be that an innocent person could perhaps be executed I don't think that is a reason to abolish the entire practice.

And this is a problem. I am always amazed that American's who are Christians and also cry foul the loudest when an "innocent" american is killed by a non-american support this stance. George W. Bush will burn in hell according to his own beliefs, since he killed innocent people.


P.S.
I don't consider the USA a civilized country, correct.

 

[Gallbaro]

Yes, only because innocent people have been killed.

 

[leroidys]

For it in theory, against it in practice. The current probability that innocent people have been and will in the future be executed is absolutely a justification to never use the death penalty. One state sanctioned execution of an innocent person easily outweighs a million blood thirsty murderers being killed. It's not even close.

.

I also want to add that I think the "well it's cheaper to give them life" argument is abhorrent. Trying to optimize expenditures over justice is exactly what gave us the horror of the private prison system.

 

[Sorian]

Except we don't live in an ideal world and should consider the reality of how the death penalty is administered when we make a decision of whether or not we're against it.

And we are never going to live in an ideal world but that shouldn't stop me from being allowed to discuss it.

 

[SamVimes]

.

I also want to add that I think the "well it's cheaper to give them life" argument is abhorrent. Trying to optimize expenditures over justice is exactly what gave us the horror of the private prison system.

That's why it's used not as an argument but as a counter-argument when pro death sentence people say that killing people off is cheaper.

I'm against life without parole too to be honest.

 

[G.O.O.]

Death penalty is basically the state saying it's OK to kill someone under certain circumstances (that doesn't include self-defense).

That's it. It has no positive effect on crime rates, it's costly, and it sets a bad example for people. I think that's enough to be against it.

 

[foxtrot3d]

Life sentence without parole also removes them from society

Prison is still a type of society, whether we wish to think that or not. Thus, I guess my view would be that there seems something inherently unfair in allowing the serial killer of 20 to so people to still be allowed to live in any sort of society. The punishment simply does not equate in my opinion and rather they should be completely removed from any type of society, then there is also the fact that they may be a possible danger to other prisoners.

 

[OldKentuckyShark]

I'm absolutely for it, though I think it should be put through some reforms.
Death is a proper punishment for some people, such as serial killers. Jail isn't enough of a punishment. I'd say that for most people, jail isn't as bad as being put to death. Jail is often better than living on the street.
I'd bet that a large portion of people against the death penalty would change their tune if someone came along and brutally murdered their friends and family.
But it's not just about satisfying bloodlust, it's about showing people how serious the consequences they will face will be if they murder people. That they could be put to death is a better deturrent againts people murdering than them facing life in prison.
Also, for those who think life in prison would be worse than death, how is that any better for the wrongly convicted?
I'd also like to think that the death penalty would help with prison overpopulation.

 

[Pau]

And we are never going to live in an ideal world but that shouldn't stop me from being allowed to discuss it.

I'm not the one who was putting a limit on what we should discuss in this thread.

 

[mullet2000]

What stops him from killing the child immediately after the fact since he has nothing to lose?

Don't know. I'm pretty sure most people would be operating under the assumption that they aren't going to get caught anyway.

I often don't feel great about "well if we're going to be more strict about this then people will have nothing to lose thus react more harshly" type questions. I'm not sure that life in prison vs death sentence would make that much of a difference in the mind of someone who's already fucked up enough to do something like that.

Also to make it clear, I'm not even sure where I stand on the issue, which I hope came through in my first post.

 

[Mr-Joker]

I'm against it because;

-it's not a deterrent
- two wrong don't make a right
-an innocent person could be executed
-It's an outdated practice

As far as #2 goes while it may be that an innocent person could perhaps be executed I don't think that is a reason to abolish the entire practice.

So the innocent person is disposable just so you can keep the Dead Penalty, when it was design to protect the innocent?

 

[Oersted]

Prison is still a type of society, whether we wish to think that or not. Thus, I guess my view would be that there seems something inherently unfair in allowing the serial killer of 20 to so people to still be allowed to live in any sort of society. The punishment simply does not equate in my opinion and rather they should be completely removed from any type of society, then there is also the fact that they may be a possible danger to other prisoners.

So it is about revenge?

 

[alstein]

Black people are given the death penalty way out of proportion to the population. Innocent black people are given the death penalty way out of proportion to the population.

The "race card" is entirely appropriate here.

North Carolina passed , (and rightfully so- even with my support of the death penalty) a law designed to double-check death penalty cases due to this.

The Koch Brothers funded state legislature tried to repeal this in 2010, and succeeded in 2012 when they got a Koch Brothers funded governor in office.

Life sentence without parole also removes them from society

I still consider that punishment more inhumane.

Also, civilized countries kill all the time. The US kills terrorists when they can, that's killing. (you can make arguments over how we do it, but I support the killing of Al-Qaeda- style terrorists when done properly)

 

[Sorian]

You keep using the word "punishment" as though it means something distinct from "revenge." What do you think it means?

At least for me, there is an emotional difference between those two things. Punishment is more of an automatic process like an "if x then y" type thing. If you commit first degree murder than the punishment is this. End of story, no negotiation, it is what it is. Revenge can then be a part of this category but its only if the person who was slighted gets something from it, happiness from seeing the killer of their loved one feeling the same fear, something like that. Even just wanting to know that the perpetrator got punished wouldn't necesarilly be revenge if you're only reason for wanting that is because you don't want that person to get away from what they are due. You can expect punishment from someone without feeling redeemed in any way after they receive that punishment.

 

[Charles Foster Kane]

When you wrote:

I feel, if you're supporting a punishment based system, for heinous enough crimes, torture shouldn't necessarily be out of the question.

And even though you don't think "eye for an eye" is right, that doesn't necessarily need to take place to support some form of punishment like torture.

Just curious to know why do you think the deprivation of freedom is an apt punishment for *any* crime, from rape, to murder, to genocide, to torture.

I think imprisonment for imprisonment's sake is a form of light torture, after all.
--
Not trying to be a dick or anything, btw, just genuinely curious about the reasoning you'd apply; considering other's point of view and so forth.

Yes, it is a form torture, after all they're imprisoned. I just don't agree with physical forms of torture. I don't think they serve any purpose. Just like I don't think rapers getting raped helps anybody.

I believe when heinous crimes are committed, the person responsible should lose their right to be part of society. Depending on the crime, some should be given the opportunity for rehabilitation.

 

[Cyan]

Death is a proper punishment for some people, such as serial killers. Jail isn't enough of a punishment. I'd say that for most people, jail isn't as bad as being put to death. Jail is often better than living on the street.

So... revenge.

I'd bet that a large portion of people against the death penalty would change their tune if someone came along and brutally murdered their friends and family.

No shit. I would probably want to kill them myself. That doesn't mean it would be the right decision for the state to capture the guy, tie him up, and hand me a gun.

But it's not just about satisfying bloodlust, it's about showing people how serious the consequences they will face will be if they murder people. That they could be put to death is a better deturrent againts people murdering than them facing life in prison.

Would you change your mind on the death penalty if it turned out it wasn't actually a better deterrent?

Also, for those who think life in prison would be worse than death, how is that any better for the wrongly convicted?

It's possible to undo a life sentence.

I'd also like to think that the death penalty would help with prison overpopulation.

a) no, the number of people who get the death penalty isn't large enough to really make a dent, and b) Jesus dude, listen to yourself.

 

[DragonGirl]

I really have no problem with killing people guilty of terrible crimes but I'm against the death penalty because our justice system is not even remotely good enough at assuring only guilty people get convicted. We send far too many innocent people to prison ( as demonstrated by the numerous releases of people vindicated years after the fact by DNA evidence). Our courts are heavily stacked in the favor of prosecution, especially in minority cases. No to death penalty, there's too high a chance that it will be an innocent who is executed.

 

[foxtrot3d]

You keep using the word "punishment" as though it means something distinct from "revenge." What do you think it means?

Revenge stems from a desire, usually from the person who is harmed, to inflict pain and suffering or an equal amount of harm on the person who injured them. It is a purely emotional response. Punishment is cold, it is not motivated by emotion but only sees fit to ensure justice. While the end results of a desire for revenge and punishment/justice can sometimes be the same they are totally different in terms of motivation.

 

[Sorian]

I'm not the one who was putting a limit on what we should discuss in this thread.

Nor was I, I just noticed that some of us were coming at the death penalty topic from a different angle based on how we read the OP and I thought it would be necessary to explain how I had read it in relation to what I was saying.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Sigh, I guess why not?
I am in a socioeconomic class where it's very unlikely for me to get executed, so why show empathy for the poor minorities who make up the people ending up executed?

Why even consider the fact that innocents have been killed, and will continue to be killed for as long as teh death penalty is a thing (until we reach a minority report style justice system, in which case we'd be even more fucked up as a society).

Forget about the cost/benefit ratio of death penalty, how it clogs up the justice system and drains your heard-earned tax dollars more than simply putting them away for life. How in the end, executing criminals is a net loss to society.

So sure, I'm all for death penalty, because it feels so good.

 

[SamVimes]

I'm absolutely for it, though I think it should be put through some reforms.
Death is a proper punishment for some people, such as serial killers. Jail isn't enough of a punishment. I'd say that for most people, jail isn't as bad as being put to death. Jail is often better than living on the street.

I'd bet that a large portion of people against the death penalty would change their tune if someone came along and brutally murdered their friends and family.

You would be wrong, after the Breivik sentence the family of most of the victims were happy with the outcome

But it's not just about satisfying bloodlust, it's about showing people how serious the consequences they will face will be if they murder people. That they could be put to death is a better deturrent againts people murdering than them facing life in prison.

Also, for those who think life in prison would be worse than death, how is that any better for the wrongly convicted?

There is a bigger chance that the sentence gets overturned.

I'd also like to think that the death penalty would help with prison overpopulation.

The overpopulation is because of the war on drugs, the prisons aren't full of cold-blooded murderers.

 

[Cyan]

Revenge stems from a desire, usually from the person who is harmed, to inflict pain and suffering or an equal amount of harm on the person who injured them. It is a purely emotional response. Punishment is cold, it is not motivated by emotion but only sees fit to ensure justice. While the end results of a desire for revenge and punishment/justice can sometimes be the same they are totally different.

Ok... but then it's just revenge, but with the only actual benefits of revenge tamped down so that it won't look like revenge.

 

[Kajigger]

I really don't see how anyone can be against it. Kill the bastard. Problem solved for everyone. We don't pay for him/her to be in prison and he/she pays for what he/she did.

 

[pants]

I'm against it as a sentence. however I would not be upset if all life sentences would be an or death situation, let the criminal decide if he'll repent the rest of his life or get booted off the mortal coil.

 

[Cyan]

I really don't see how anyone can be against it.

Gee, maybe read the thread?

 

[Patrick Bateman]

I'm against the death penalty, because:

- too expensive, compared to a life sentence
- the whole process from court decision to execution takes too long
- the methods of executions are not reliable enough
- a state that kills is on the same level as the wrongdoer
- "an eye for an eye" is a pretty obsolete reason for a state to still practise death penalty
- death penalties don't prevent crimes or lower the risk of crimes in any way
- a modern state such as the US shouldn't resort to methods of punishment as states like Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Saudi-Arabia and China do.
- once executed you can't pardon an innocent
- you can't be 100% sure that everyone who's sentenced to death actually did the deed

 

[Sorian]

It's possible to undo a life sentence.

This isn't true. What is true is that you lose less at once during a life sentence than you do with the death penalty. If you are found innocent after serving 20 years, you've still lost 20 years of your life that you will never get back, there is no undoing that.

 

[Cyan]

This isn't true. What is true is that you lose less at once during a life sentence than you do with the death penalty. If you are found innocent after serving 20 years, you've still lost 20 years of your life that you will never get back, there is no undoing that.

Yes, yes. You know what I meant.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I really don't see how anyone can be against it. Kill the bastard. Problem solved for everyone. We don't pay for him/her to be in prison and he/she pays for what he/she did.

This isn't true. What is true is that you lose less at once during a life sentence than you do with the death penalty. If you are found innocent after serving 20 years, you've still lost 20 years of your life that you will never get back, there is no undoing that.

True, you can never return the years stolen from the innocents.
What you can do though is compensate them for those years, and make sure that they live their remainder of years without having to worry about money ever again.

You can't compensate someone for their death, which is what I assume Cyan was getting at.

 

[Buttermilk]

For it in theory, against it in practice. The current probability that innocent people have been and will in the future be executed is absolutely a justification to never use the death penalty. One state sanctioned execution of an innocent person easily outweighs a million blood thirsty murderers being killed. It's not even close.

You let a million murderers live(even in prison) you have a lot more than one innocent person having their life taken from them. Whether they kill a nonviolent inmate, murder a guard, serve their sentence and get out to kill again. Some of them will find a way to kill. You would have condemned people to death by letting all those killers live.

 

[Forsete]

I am for in some circumstances.

If the crimes are exceptionally cruel and there is zero doubt.
Some people can not be rehabilitated, and frankly some does not deserve the chance to be.

Some inmates in sweden who maybe shouldn't be in prison, but someplace else.

Anders Eklund
Christine Schürrer
Jackie Arklöv
Mattias Flink - In prison since 1994 for 7 murders, about the be released!

 

[foxtrot3d]

Ok... but then it's just revenge, but with the only actual benefits of revenge tamped down so that it won't look like revenge.

I don't understand what you are saying. If a person steals $500 from you and you get angry and decide to go and steal $500 back from that said person, that is revenge. If the police were to catch that person and the court were to order that person to pay you back $500 that is justice. The result is the same, the motivation is different. Justice isn't about fulfilling some emotional rage, it is about doling out equitable punishment as per the social contract.

 

[Oersted]

Gee, maybe read the thread?

Its Kajigger. He fills up GAFs rightwing lunatic-quota.

 

[collige]

This isn't true. What is true is that you lose less at once during a life sentence than you do with the death penalty. If you are found innocent after serving 20 years, you've still lost 20 years of your life that you will never get back, there is no undoing that.

Come on now, you know what he means. If you're found innocent after 20 years, you still get to spend the rest of your life free (and probably sue the state for a good amount of money too), instead of being dead forever.